One of the things that’s always bothered me about Democrats in general and progressives in particular is our tendency to be, well… a bunch of pussies. While Republican tacticians routinely pay tribute to Machiavelli (which is a helluva lot easier than actually reading him,) my fellow Democrats often seem more inspired by The Little Prince. Politics is about seizing, maintaining and exercising power, and in a Democracy that means winning elections. Republicans seem to get this. Democrats… not so much.
Take for example the race to replace the late Norm Maleng as King County Prosecuting Attorney, where two smart, dedicated, qualified, and by all accounts decent men are running for office. Were this a primary, the decision might be tougher, but in a general election in a county with a two-to-one Democratic advantage, this race is a no-brainer: the guy with “D” next to his name on the ballot should win. And yet a fair number of Democrats have come out in support of Republican Dan Satterberg over Democrat Bill Sherman.
Pussies.
Yeah, sure… no doubt Dan is a nice guy and all that, and I can certainly understand the legal establishment’s instinctive urge to preserve the status quo. But this is about politics, and politics is about winning… and if Democrats ignore this basic tenet it will surely come back and bite us in the ass.
There is this myth that has been perpetuated by Satterberg supporters that the PAO is a magically nonpartisan office, but as Alex Fryer points out in yesterday’s Seattle Times, that is not always the case. The prosecutor controls a seat on the county’s three-member canvassing board, and as Maleng’s delegate on the board, Satterberg took some disturbingly partisan positions.
Satterberg’s tenure on the canvassing board highlights the intense political pressure on those who count the votes, and how almost every decision the board makes can be cast as partisan.
[…] During the initial vote counting, with Republican state Sen. Dino Rossi clinging to a 1,920-vote lead over Democrat Christine Gregoire, the King County Elections Division — on advice from the King County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office — ruled that it would not give the Democratic Party a list of voters whose provisional ballots had been rejected because of missing or mismatched signatures.
Democrats wanted to use the list to contact voters to try to resolve the questioned signatures and count the ballots.
The issue went to King County Superior Court, and a judge ordered the names released.
[…] A few weeks later, with Rossi’s margin hovering around 100 votes after a recount, the canvassing board made what many consider a pivotal decision.
Canvassing-board members Dwight Pelz, a Metropolitan King County Council member, and Election Director Dean Logan outvoted Satterberg to direct election workers to reconsider 573 absentee ballots that county officials said had been erroneously disqualified.
In fact it was the court order releasing the list of voters with missing or mismatched signatures that likely proved more decisive, as it enabled Democrats to canvass for updated signature cards, resulting in a far larger number of qualified voters having their ballots counted. But it was Satterberg’s vote to exclude the 573 566 “Phillips ballots” that Democrats should find most disturbing.
These were ballots that were legally cast, but for which signatures could not be found in KCRE’s computer system. Standard procedure called for these ballots to be put aside until the signature cards could be pulled for comparison, but instead these ballots were forgotten… tucked away in a couple of trays inside “the cage.” Forgotten that is, until King County Council President Larry Phillips discovered that his ballot had not been counted, and inquired as to why. That led KCRE to discover 735 misfiled ballots, of which 566 were eventually verified and counted.
Understand that these were ballots of known provenance, legally cast by registered voters, and safely secured in the cage throughout the entire process, and that the Washington State Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the canvassing board had the right to add these ballots to the count. And yet Satterberg voted to exclude these ballots and deny these 566 citizens their most basic democratic right.
When push came to shove, that was the kind of nonpartisan office we got from Norm Maleng. And that is the kind of nonpartisan tradition Satterberg promises to continue.
Had Republicans controlled the canvassing board in 2004, just enough legally cast ballots might have been suppressed to give Dino Rossi the governor’s mansion, and don’t believe for a moment that isn’t the primary motivation behind a GOP-backed ballot measure to make the elections director an elected office. How else to explain the bizarre February special election called for in the proposed charter amendment, perfectly designed to permit a Republican to squeak through a crowded field in a low-turnout, nominally nonpartisan race? And if they succeed in taking the PAO and the elections director, Republicans would seize a two-thirds majority on the canvassing board that oversees elections in a two-thirds Democratic district encompassing one-third of the state’s electorate.
The PAO is a partisan office that plays a major role in the administration of our elections, serving as both KCRE’s attorney, and controlling one of three seats on the canvassing board. This is a partisan political race, and Democrats need to wake up to what is at stake. This is not about whether Satterberg is a good lawyer or an experienced administrator or decent guy. It’s about whether or not he is a Republican.
And in this race, facing a qualified Democratic opponent, that should be all we need to know.
I-25 calling for an elected director of elections is supported by many people, including democrats, republicans, greens and others. The Democrats and the Republicans in the 2004 recounts changed their legal positions every time a new court decision came around. There was no intellectual honesty in either party.
I-25 would take the elections department out from under the thumb of the executive. That’s one of the reasons most people support it when polled. In addition, it’s hard to argue against more Democracy, especially if you are talking about the head of “Elections”, that is unless you happen to be a King County Democrat, then Diebold and unaccountable appointments seem to make perfect sense.
Jason Aaron Osgood’s election integrity series over at Washblog, http://www.washblog.com/?op=se.....nintegrity,
has done great work on exposing the clusterf**k that is King County Elections department. And he’s a Democrat blogger himself…
I’d love it if you’d ever stop spinning this as a D versus R issue, and would actually take on the real election integrity issues so pervasive throughout this state AND King County.
I’m thinking the progressive urging a yes vote on RTID are an equally good example of ball-less-ness.
Gentry @ 1
“I’d love it if you’d ever stop spinning this as a D versus R issue”
The post wasn’t about I-25. It was about electing Sherman or Satterberg for King County Prosecutor. As Goldy’s post points out, that really does boil down to a “D versus R issue.”
Goldy, I agree with what you’ve written, but must you use the word “pussy” to describe a wimp? As the owner of a pussy, I kick a lot more ass than a lot of men I know, and I dislike my most intimate parts being maligned just because some democrats lack a different part of their anatomy– namely their backbones.
May I suggest “pansy” instead? I’m fond of pansies as a flower, but I’ll throw them under the bus if we can stop this stupid implication that women are weak.
Also, I think that a lot of Democrats want to endorse a Republican in this race because so many Washingtonians fancy themselves “Independent,” even though the only cross-party vote they’d ever cast was for Sam Reed or Norm Maeling. It’s a big constituency; throwing it a bone to make yourself look independent could be a shrewd move, and also a lot of the people, being Washingtonians, like to think that they are independents first, and Democrats out of necessity.
Continuing Darryl’s point to Gentry, at the very top of his November ballot he will find the choices for Prosecuting Attorney. Following the names of the two gentlemen he’ll see there will be the letters D and R. If that doesn’t make it a “D versus R issue”, then what is it?
He tries to obfuscate the point by tossing I-25 into the mix, but that’s an entirely separate issue, on an entirely different portion of the ballot. Aside from the capacity to appoint a member of the Canvassing Board, the Prosecuting Attorney has no particular association with the King County Elections office.
Gentry Lange is (typically) throwing in a
redGreen herring. And you know how stinky herring can be.PS to Gentry — did you hear that St. Ralph may be thinking about putting together some staff in Iowa and New Hampshire … in the Democratic caucus/primary, respectively? (URL: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/9/25/13531/0020)
Yeah, who can forget what a great job Sam Reed did as Secretary of State during the 2004 brouhaha, completely being on the ball when it came to Judge Bridges’ opinion, winning EVERY court action they were involved in.
Good thing we had a Democrat as Secretary of Sta-oh, wait. You mean you CAN do your job under the law and be a Republican? Zounds!
Sorry, Goldy, this is where you come off sounding like our friend Mr. Shark, who basically thinks if there’s a D next to your name you are scum (Tim Sheldon excepted). Who should I believe here?
David McDonald, an attorney who represented the Democratic Party during the gubernatorial recount, said Satterberg “always functioned appropriately” on the canvassing board.
or the fricking state Democratic Party chair, who probably would call Jesus Christ a horrible person if he was running as a Republican in November… because, well, that’s his JOB, to be a partisan?
[former Canvassing-board member and Metropolitan King County Council member Dwight] Pelz, now chairman of the state Democratic Party, said Satterberg caved to GOP pressure.
“On that day, for Dan Satterberg, it was all about politics,” Pelz said.
That being said, sure, I’m voting for the Democrat… but incidentally, Satterberg’s explanation on the Phillips ballots?
Satterberg said his vote was really intended to give the canvassing board more time to consider the consequences of reviewing votes that were not previously counted.
“I felt Dwight and Dean were rushing,” Satterberg said. “I’m a prosecutor. I wanted to have more evidence.”
That’s not totally unreasonable- or is the accusation he’s lying?
exelizabeth @4,
I believe the derivation of “pussy” in the context I’m using it originally derives from “pussycat”. If that’s the case, I guess I own a pussy too.
Exelizabeth,
The term pussy, used to refer to someone as weak, almost certainly has a different etymology than the term pussy, used as slang for the female genitalia.
From Wikipedia:
Thank you, Darryl, for the lesson on word origins. I always appreciate etymologic edification.
Bravo, Goldy. Best post in months!
Gentry @1,
A) What Darryl said. This is about the prosecutor’s race, not I-25.
B) I’m not sure what kind of stick you have up your ass about King County Elections, but your Republican friends find it to be a nifty handle for the tool they surely view you to be. You think the EFF and (u)SP folks respect you and Jason? They’re laughing at you. But happy to use you.
You want to accuse people like me of being Diebold Democrats, then back it up. Come on, show me the vote tabulation fraud. In fact, we had the ultimate audit of our vote tabulation software in 2004 when a statewide hand recount found a statistically insignificant variance between the machine recount and the final tally. Do I trust Diebold or the other companies? Hell no! But you show me what kind of progress you’ve actually made toward moving to open source software. (I’d wager, zip.)
The biggest thing we can do to safeguard elections is to require paper ballots, something vote-by-mail does by default, but you and your cohorts are doing everything possible to make King County the ONLY county in state that doesn’t vote entirely by mail. You trust those touch screen machines at the polling the place? I sure as hell don’t. What are YOU doing to get rid of them.
The “real election integrity issues” have to do more with voter suppression and intimidation, but as long as you keep helping your Republican buddies keep the focus on nonexistent fraud, none of that will ever be addressed. Congratulations.
According to Dwight Pelz (who lobs epistolatory hand grenades my way from time to time), anyone who uses his right hand becomes a partisan hack by definition. And Dean Logan? In the dictionary under the term “incompetent” is his picture with a cross referance to the term, “partisan hack…see also, partisan appointee of a partisan hack.”
You people are really reaching…You’re trying to partisanize Satterberg who already has more Demos endorsing him than it seems endorse his opponent! And the best you can come up with, Goldy, is the canvassing board???
What…Didn’t you know that that Dan Satterberg is actually Karl Rove’s illegitimate son out of Ann Coulter?
And Goldy…careful using court opinions…My read of the relevent opinion is that it uphold the canvassing board’s authority to decide the issue, not that the decision it reached was the best and only one possible. I’ll bet had the canvassing board gone the other way, the court would have upheld that action, too.
It’s been a while, but as I recall the standard of review for such matters isn’t for an appellate court to rehash the facts and make an independent decision, but to determine whether an administrative agency or body, in this case the canvassing board, made a decision that wasn’t arbitrary, capricious, clearly erroneous, or something along those lines.
But like I say…it’s been a long time since I studied this stuff.
The Piper
this is to goldy your favorite dumb congreeman will be on hardball today/tonight
Piper Scott,
‘And Dean Logan? In the dictionary under the term “incompetent”’
Oh brother. As if you have any qualifications whatsoever to judge the competence of Logan. You are just another idiotic commenter who has been brainwashed by an overdose of Sharkansky and/or Wingnut Radio. Spare us your “wisdom.”
If we move on from your tripe to people with actual qualifications to judge Logan, you may recall that during the election contest in 2004, elections supervisors from around Washington state came to Logan’s defense. You might also recall Sam Reed’s statement about Logan when he moved from the State to King County:
Man, you wingnuts just eat up your own bullshit memes.
@12…Goldy…
“Don’t assume cupidity where stupidity will suffice.” David Postman.
Admittedly not coined with KC Records and Elections in mind, Postman’s phrase still has a nice ring to it and lends itself well to the issue at hand. I’m willing to attribute the complete fubar that continues to be KCRE to a bungle-brothers-and-sisters-run-an-office rather than exclusively to some dark and sinister plot hatched in the Kremlin.
There’s just too much Fawlty Towers about those putzes; they couldn’t conspire their way to the Gents’ Loo if they had to!
I don’t trust touch-screen machines either. I trust all-mail ballots about as much. I’d just as soon stay with voters going to the polls, being given a PAPER ballot, having them mark it in secret, then depositing it in the ballot box (I’ve been convinced for years that the automated machines I stick my ballot into is actually a paper shredder in disguise, hence my preference for a simple box).
BTW…Jason is getting a lot of traction and respect from Postman for his work at outing the inept botching of all things electoral at KCRE…And Postman is certainly someone without the POV of Bob Williams or Stefan Sharkansky.
Sometimes dogmatic orthodoxy just isn’t enough…The prosecutor’s race looks to be a wonderful example of that. Compare the endorsements received by both Satterberg and his opponent and you quickly find that Satterberg draws broad, bi-partisan support while Bill Sherman’s are pretty limited to mostly Democratic office holders who would be drummed out of the party by Dwight Pelz if they didn’t tow the party line.
Satterberg’s, however, include a who’s-who in the legal community, including Democratic stalwarts such as Jenny Durkan and Wes Uhlman. The list of attorneys endorsing Satterburg is l-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-n-g and very Democratic.
BTW…that Sherman accepted endorsements from certain members of the Kirkland City Council immediately calls his judgment into question. But that’s just an opinion from someone who’s dealt with that bunch more times than I care to recall.
To his credit, though, I didn’t see the name of the Democrat to end all Democrats, Richard Pope, on the list of Sherman’s supporters. But I’ll keep checking…it’s early yet.
Sometimes you have to let one go…Maybe this is the one?
The Piper
Image of Piper Scott:
http://fortyfour.typepad.com/b ookishgardener/images/Sideshow Bob-thumb.bmp
THIS is the image!
http://www.ayecarumba.net/info/lists/other104.gif
Piper @16
The Help America Vote Act (HAVA) requires at least one handicapped accessible touchscreen at every polling place, and requires that anybody be allowed to use it. So now we have THREE different election systems.
That’s because Democrats are a bunch of PUSSIES!!! You never see Republicans reaching out across party lines to support Democrats because they know better. This isn’t bipartisanship, this is Democrats stupidly helping Republicans win because somehow they feel Satterberg is different, and because it makes them feel so good about themselves being so bipartisan.
I mean really… what the fuck? Every time I hear a Republican calling for bipartisanship its a call for Democrats to cave into Republicans. Yeah… like the Democratic majority should reach out to Republicans across the aisle after they pissed all over us for so many years.
Screw that.
@19…Goldy…
A lot of the GOP’er’s you love to demonize routinely support Brian Sonntag who is an excellent and honest elected official…and a Democrat.
And when that racist gutter trash, David Duke, ran as a Republican for a Louisiana senate seat, Republicans from Bush the Elder on down publicly endorsed and campaigned for his Democratic opponent.
But here’s the deal…When you seek to bang such a hard edged partisan drum in a race like this, a Hell of a lot of street cred gets lost in the process. Demonizing the devil is one thing, but when you try it on a Boy Scout like Dan Satterberg, it goes flat.
The Piper
I was one of the 1900+ people that had her voting registration challenged by Lori Sotelo of the King County Republicans. I have been legally voting in the state of Washington since 1978, and I have been voting with my married name since 1993. We have resided in our home in Duvall since 2000. Of course, Ms. Sotelo alleges that those challenged registered with non-existent residences or post office boxes as addresses. I did neither. I might also mention that I ran for office the year before. One’s voting registration is checked on the spot and in person by King County Elections during this process. There was certainly no problem at that time.
Ms. Sotelo was never charged with perjury, despite the paperwork stating that she must have PERSONAL knowledge of any voter attempting to commit fraud. When I asked the reporter from the Times that wrote the article Goldy is referencing about this, his comments were that Democratic attorneys had decided not to press charges against Ms. Sotelo because then those who had actually been caught in the net (I believe there were less than 20 people who were improperly registered, were there not? The vast majority of those accused were found later to have been registered properly,) would supposedly also have to be charged with perjury.
We all know that the Republicans will pull these stunts again, and Mr. Satterberg, I’m sure, will turn a blind eye, just as his predecessor did. I can’t trust a Republican prosecuting attorney on the elections board anymore.
IMHO, YMMV,
-S
Piper @20,
I have never demonized Satterberg. I’ve simply criticized his vote on the Phillips ballots, and suggested that this is what we should expect from a Satterberg administration.
Look, our legal system is adversarial by design. As an attorney, Satterberg’s job is to do whatever he can within the law to win, assuming that the other guy’s attorney will be doing the same. The same is true of politics. Legally, the canvassing board could have rejected the Phillips ballots, even though that would have denied 566 voters the franchise. There’s nothing crooked about Satterberg’s vote. But I just don’t think it lines up with the values of the majority of King County voters.
Whether you like it or not, party affiliation matters, and those who say it doesn’t are either naive or lying.
Here is what gets me about Dan Satterberg’s decision-making on the 573 “Larry Phillips ballots”. The King County Prosecuting Attorney’s office provides legal advice to the Elections Director and to the Canvassing Board. The legal advice from the KC PAO was that these ballots should be “counted” — i.e. checked for signature verification, processed and tabulated. Dan Satterberg was second-in-command of the KC PAO at the time. How can he explain casting a vote as a Canvassing Board member that was contrary to the legal advice being provided by his own office?
#23 — UUUUUUUUHHHHHHHHHH!!!! Because being a partisan Republican comes BEFORE honesty, legality, and the Public Interest to the likes of Satterberg.
If you know of an honest Republican, it’s because you haven’t done enough research on them.
The Piper = ‘Side-show Bob’
If a Democrat feels a need to occasionally cross party lines, pull the lever for a Green or a Libertarian or a Socialist Worker candidate. Anyone who sticks an R after his or her name at present is morally suspect and plainly lacks judgment. I have never pulled the lever for any Republican at any level and would hope that God would strike me dead if I ever did. I do not understand how Jenny Durkan could ever endorse a Republican over a most able Democrat like Bill Sherman. I hope she’s headed to confessional on the run.
A lot of the GOP’er’s you love to demonize routinely support Brian Sonntag.
That’s small relief. What? Didn’t 40 percent of Republicans vote for the “international man of action” in 2004 over Sonntag?
That and the loony ravings of the (un)SP crowd tells me all I need to know about trusting the current Republican party in this state.
“This is not about whether Satterberg is a good lawyer or an experienced administrator or decent guy. It’s about whether or not he is a Republican.”
This is the most idiotic statement ever! We are electing the King County Prosecuting Attorney. Of course he needs to be a good lawyer. Of course he needs to be an experienced administrator. Of course he should be a decent guy. As you accurately admit, Satterberg possesses all of these qualities. Sherman falls short of Satterberg in all departments. The only thing going for him is that D next to his name. That’s why you and Sherman do nothing but try to saddle Satterberg with Bush, Chaney, and all of those other morons in Washington. You’re a joke.
Johnny @ 28
Sherman doesn’t fall short of Satterberg in any of the departments you mention. Not a one. He is a highly respected attorney who would do well as the King County Prosecutor. And, by the way, he’s a Democrat, which means he isn’t tethered to the nonsense that characterizes contemporary Republicanism.
Thanks Goldy, Darryl, and All!
I had planned to vote against I-25, that was a no brainer considering the timing of that vote. Seemed too underhanded like many partisan politics being pushed into play. Was confused about the Republican Dan Satterberg over Democrat Bill Sherman given the endorsements.
Norm Maleng seemed to be an honorable person, and I actually voted for him several times even though I didn’t always agree with his decisions on whether or not to pursue the death penalty in some cases. Appreciate the extra background info now and will definitely stick with the The D-list myself in this race.
[W]here two smart, dedicated, qualified, and by all accounts decent men are running for office.
Nope. Dan Satterberg is nothing more than a political operative. To my personal knowledge, Satterberg subverted a whistleblower complaint (and then lied about it) and prosecuted a City Council member who caught a city manager in a lie. Satterberg is bad news and any Democrat who supports him needs to seriously reconsider that position.
@22…Goldy…
Never said party affilication didn’t matter; most of the time it matters a lot and should matter even more.
This, however, isn’t one of those times. The Prosecuting Attorney’s office isn’t one with a legislative agenda. It’s primarily charged with administering the law and prosecuting violaters thereof.
By all accounts, Dan Satterberg is a good lawyer, a solid administrator, and, given the statements of merely DEMOCRATS who endorse him, an honest man. What’s more to ask for?
To those who roil at the thought of ever voting for a Republican simply because he or she is a Republican, you’re certainly entitled to your POV; it’s a free country (I say that a lot…have you noticed?). You should understand, however, that voters in the middle – the unaffiliated ones us hard-core partisans are always playing tug o’ war with – don’t share that belief.
I also know because they’ve told me, that elected officials in both parties color outside their political lines with a lot more frequencey than you all might suspect.
And, Goldy, your analysis of “whatever it takes to win” comparison of the PA’s office and politics isn’t, I believe, accurate. The rules of procedure, ethical constraints, and both statutory law and judicial precedent preclude that behavior.
Politics is root hog or die, the law isn’t. It can be hard and at times unyielding, but what’s Kosher electorally is a disbarrment offense legally.
@23…RP…
How can he explain his vote on the canvassing board? Why don’t you ask him and find out?
@26…PL…
How could Jenny Durkan support Dan Satterberg? Why don’t you ask her and find out?
The Piper
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again now. . .no thoughtful voter in America today can vote for a Republican Prosecutor at any level. The Rovian corruption of the Federal Prosecutors followed by totally partisan prosecutions is only matched, written small, by Satterberg’s complicity in the non-prosecution of Lori Sotelo.
Goldy: “Politics is about seizing, maintaining and exercising power, and in a Democracy that means winning elections. Republicans seem to get this. Democrats… not so much.”
Yes, and how has those tactics worked for Republicans and the country as a whole? So why advocate the same for Democrats?
I don’t get the “Republicans are evil, but we must act like ’em to win” attitude.
The justice system is political from the Supreme Court on down — even the color of a pot smoker is a political consideration in arrest and prosecution.
Daryll @3,
Goldy introduced the issue of I-25:
“Had Republicans controlled the canvassing board in 2004, just enough legally cast ballots might have been suppressed to give Dino Rossi the governor’s mansion, and don’t believe for a moment that isn’t the primary motivation behind a GOP-backed ballot measure to make the elections director an elected office. How else to explain the bizarre February special election called for in the proposed charter amendment, perfectly designed to permit a Republican to squeak through a crowded field in a low-turnout, nominally nonpartisan race?”
So I didn’t make this about I-25, no, that was Goldy. Apparently Goldy agrees with you though @12. Big surprise there.
Goldy @12,
The real issue in election integrity is about public ownership, public observation of the process, and public staffing of the entire process. Vote-by Mail and Diebold systems in combination absolutely destroy public control of the election system.
This is why I oppose both Vote-by Mail systems and Privatized computer vote-counting software like the Diebold systems used here in King County to count absentee ballots.
I support paper ballots, just not paper ballots that turn-into vapor ballots in the mail or when feed directly into Diebold’s counting systems. But it certainly is not necessary to prove election fraud using King County’s Election system to show that you are a Diebold Democrat, your response shows it rather explicitly. You defend the use of Diebold and Vote-by mail by saying that there’s no proof of fraud. How exactly your rhetoric matches that of Diebold and privatization proponents.
As to your point about open sourced software, I’m not a programmer, but I do support the push in that direction. I don’t think that supporting open-source software makes me personally responsible for learning how to program it myself?
In King County, it would be perfectly acceptable to hand count/randomly hand-audit the paper ballots at the precincts, as a check against the machines. Even while continuing to use the optical scan machines for initial precinct counts, they just need to be immediately hand-audited at the precinct. Once you start shipping ballots around they have a habit of going missing.
Though most smaller counties could could hand count paper ballots voted at the polls is fairly easy, which are then counted at the precinct in front of the public after the polls close. Thereby making the issue moot.
HAVA does not require touchscreens. That’s just total BS Goldy. How again your rhetoric exactly matches that of Diebold supporters. HAVA allows for any number of systems to add disabled voters. And touchscreens may not even satisfy the requirement in the first place, see:
http://www.verifiedvotingfound.....hp?id=6072
Anyway, it looks like the comma at the end of my link to Jason’s articles broke the link, so here’s another attempt:
http://www.washblog.com/?op=se.....nintegrity
@33…TFF…
Wow! Spend a lot of time hiding under your bed, do you? Out of fear that hordes upon hordes of us Rovuplicans will shanghai you to some sinister re-education camp where you’ll be forced to wear oxford cloth button downs, Brooks Bros. suits, rep stripped ties, and Bass Weejuns?
By the time we’re done with you, your idea of heaven will be a suburban bungalow surrounded by a white picket fence and 2.7 well scrubbed children.
The country club membership will have to come out of your own pocket, though.
The more you flog poor, old Karl, the sillier you sound.
Have you heard? Karl Rove posts on HA daily under a variety of assumed names. Sometimes he’s Lee, at others he’s S-Choir, still others Proud Leftist. Other names include Darryl, Chadt, and Facts Are On My Side.
All these postings are designed to lull you into a false sense of security while preparing you for a life filled with disappointment and disillusionment.
Karl Rove is slated to become the next Dali Lama.
Karl Rove will be awarded Nobel Prizes in all the categories next year, and then the awarding of the Prizes will be terminated since it can’t get any better than Karl Rove.
Karl Rove is the only human alive capable of winning a Lotto jackpot without buying a ticket. Lotto officials simply award it to him because he’s so deserving.
Karl Rove will replace Shaun Alexander as running back for the Seahawks this Sunday.
Karl Rove’s picture is in the dictionary next to the definition of the phrase, “…thoughtful voter.”
Life can be hard!
The Piper
Piper Scott,
“Never said party affilication didn’t matter; most of the time it matters a lot and should matter even more. This, however, isn’t one of those times. The Prosecuting Attorney’s office isn’t one with a legislative agenda. It’s primarily charged with administering the law and prosecuting violaters thereof.”
Wrong. The fact that the job is primarily administrative doesn’t really isolate it from partisan politics.
At the local level, the non-indictment of Lori Sotelo is a good example. If Bill Sherman had been in office, Sotelo likely would have had the opportunity of having a fair trial.
A demonstration of the partisan nature of government prosecutors at the federal level is the fact that all or nearly all of the U.S. Attorneys are replaced whenever there is a party change in the White House. The USAs are expected, to some extent, to follow the administration’s criminal justice philosophy and pursue the administration’s agenda.
(You know…like the Bush administration pushing USAs to indict Democratic politicians, indict people for non-existent voter fraud, approve of domestic spying programs sans court oversight, and allow mid-term redistricting for obvious partisan advantage. OK…bad examples…but only because the Bush administration pushed everything too far.)
You folks have far too much time on your hands and clearly no idea of a) what it takes to make decisions that effect peoples lives all day every day and b) the fact that THAT is 95% of what a Prosecutor does. The “civil” side of the job is miniscule in comparison, and anyone who says Sherman is as qualified as Satterberg to shoulder this responsibility simply does not know either of them in their professional capacity. Sherman’s four years(minus, of course, time off to run for various offices) of prosecuting low-level crimes can’t compare to Satterberg’s eighteen years as the second in charge of the most even handed and respected prosecutors offices in the country. End of story
31st District Voter,
‘I don’t get the “Republicans are evil, but we must act like ‘em to win” attitude.’
Goldy isn’t making the argument “we must act evil like Rs in order to win.”
His argument is that we must take winning elections seriously the way Rs do in order to…um…win elections.
There is nothing inherently evil or bad (or even Republican) about trying to win elections…it is just that the Republicans have caught on to the idea and Democrats aren’t quite there yet.
Gentry @36,
How incredibly intellectually dishonest (or stupid) can you get? Let me say it again: the statewide hand recount absolutely proved that there was no tabulation fraud with paper ballots in WA state in 2004. You cannot ask for a more thorough, open and transparent audit. THERE WAS NO FRAUD!!!
What the fuck are you trying to fix?
Gentry,
“Goldy introduced the issue of I-25…So I didn’t make this about I-25, no, that was Goldy.”
Dude…you saw the leaves and missed the forest. Read the post again without your I-25 myopia. It isn’t about vote by mail or I-25…it is about the election for King County Prosecutor.
Consider going to an open thread to discuss your concerns about the voting system. This is the wrong thread for that.
Piper Scott @ 37,
Umm…dude…nobody, but nobody, mentioned Karl Rove* in this comment thread but you! And, you keep bringing him up over and over again.
It looks to me like you’ve got some serious “issues.”
*Except me in this comment, but that doesn’t really count, now, does it?
There is nothing inherently evil or bad (or even Republican) about trying to win elections…it is just that the Republicans have caught on to the idea and Democrats aren’t quite there yet.
Hey Darryl, are you talking nationally? Because Democrats have done a pretty good job of winning elections here in WA. Especially western WA.
Piper,
I just want to say that no matter what is thrown your way….Thank you for raising fine young men who have answered the call of duty for their country. You must be so very proud. Thank you for your family’s sacrifice at a time when our country is at war. It’s to be admired and commended.
Kudos sir.
RS
“Let me say it again: the statewide hand recount absolutely proved that there was no tabulation fraud with paper ballots in WA state in 2004. You cannot ask for a more thorough, open and transparent audit. THERE WAS NO FRAUD!!!”
This is a total straw man argument, because I’ve never made any such argument.
1. I’ve never anywhere claimed that the 2004 election was won through fraud. I have claimed that the rate of error in 2004 meant that there was a statistical tie in the governor’s race, but that we have no real provisions for dealing with a statistical tie in Washington State. Not once have I claimed there is clear proof of fraud.
2. The hand recount excluded snohomish and yakima county. So it’s hard to say anything was conclusive about a hand recount…though Paul Lehto’s paper on Snohomish County raised some eyebrows nationally
3. The hand recount would not actually account for all the different ways that ballots go missing before the first machine recount.
What I am trying to do is get people to think logically and rationally about how we stop the privitization trainwreck that is happening, and get the voting systems back on track in this country. It’s not a partisan issue. It’s a democracy issue. King County’s Diebold GEMS tabulator with Optical scans is bad enough, but then add in touchscreens and 100% forced-mail voting, close all the polls and force out the vast majority of public election workers, and it’s about to get horribly worse.
Just look at how long it’s taking to count vote-by mail elections. Your girl, Darcy Burner even complained about that last time, one of the only times I ever heard her agree with Dave Reichart.
@43…Darryl…
Tree Frog Farmer @33 wailed about, “The Rovian corruption of the Federal Prosecutors followed by totally partisan prosecutions…” That’s not paranoia…it’s trianoia! In fact, almost too many noi’s to count!
Blaming everything from the 2000 election to the heartbreak of psoriasis on Karl Rove is too much fun!
You know who stole the key to the wardroom and then ate Capt. Queeg’s strawberries? Karl Rove.
The Piper
Right Stuff,
“Hey Darryl, are you talking nationally? Because Democrats have done a pretty good job of winning elections here in WA. Especially western WA.”
This is a good point, but the analysis isn’t just about who has the majority. It is about the attitude and strategies of the parties. Here in Washington state, it is fair to say the Republicans have been shifting to the right. One of the consequences is that seemingly “moderate” or “centrist” Republicans are given a pass by many Democrats. Rossi successfully sold himself as a moderate and almost took the Gov. office. Sam Reed, Rob McKenna, Norm Maleng are, correctly or not, viewed this way.
A point Goldy is trying to make is that electing these Republicans—even nice ones who are fully competent for the job—sometimes bites back.
Darryl,
True enough, politics is politics. Elections are contests, adversarial in nature and sometimes ugly.
I still try hold onto voting whom I feel is the best person for the job, not just a party affiliation.
Piper Scott,
“Tree Frog Farmer @33 wailed about, “The Rovian corruption of the Federal Prosecutors…”
Right, you are. I missed that one. Sorry. (On the other hand, “Rovian corruption” doesn’t have to mean Mr. Rove is directly responsible. Rather it could be something done in the style of Karl Rove.)
“Blaming everything from the 2000 election to the heartbreak of psoriasis on Karl Rove is too much fun!”
I though Katherine Harris was to blame for the 2000 election? Did I miss another memo?
“You know who stole the key to the wardroom and then ate Capt. Queeg’s strawberries? Karl Rove.”
Oh? I thought it was George Soros…or was it Hillary…I forget now.
@49…Darryl…
You can’t have “in the style of Karl Rove” without there first being a Karl Rove…ergo a reference to “Rovian” is ipso facto a reference to Karl Rove.
Hillary is Karl Rove in drag.
George Soros is applying for the job of chaffeur to Karl Rove…Investing so much of his fortune in MoveOn.org has proved to be a bust, so he needs the work.
Karl Rove, wanting to be Lincolnesque, drafted the majority SCOTUS opinion in Bush v. Gore on the back of an old envelope.
The Piper
proud leftist @ 29
“He is a highly respected attorney who would do well as the King County Prosecutor.”
Highly respected atty?! By whom? Maybe he’s a highly respected democratic politician, but he is not a “highly respected” attorney by any means. Just look at his endorsements.
Clearly I will not change your mind if you are of the idiotic Goldy mindset of “always vote D no matter what”. To him any D who actually makes an informed decision and crosses the party line to vote for a R is a “pussy”. Whatever.
Sincerely,
PUSSY
#37 — All anyone here ever said about Karl Rove is that he is the king of slimeball dirty political tricks — like saying that John McCain fathered an illegitimate black child before the S. Carolina primaries in 2000, like accusing a true war hero (John Kerry) of being a coward and a liar, like accusing Max Cleland (a Vietnam veteran who lost 3 limbs in that war) of being a liar and a coward.
The list goes on and on of the mendacity and pure evil of that rotten rat-bastard, Karl Rove.
And you are no better than MTR or Puddybud. You can dress your bullshit up in fancy verbiage — but it’s still the same old Wingnut bullshit that driving this country over the edge and into the arms of tyranny.
You should shut the fuck up, Piper, and listen for a change. Cause you are a know-nothing.
Piper Scott = ‘Sideshow Bob’
Piper Scott = ‘Sideshow Bob’
http://animatedtv.about.com/li.....howbob.jpg
Piper Scott @ 50,
I’ve noticed a trend with you wingnuts that post here. As you keep getting your asses kicked by folks living in a reality-based world, your comments become increasingly nonsensical (like your last couple of posts in this comment thread).
For example…believe it or not way back in 2005, Puddybud used to try engaging in intelligible conversation. Now he just spews marginally understandable nonsense that is largely ignored. You can plainly see for yourself what he has been reduced to.
Question: are you going to let that happen to you, too?
Want to start your private office arms race?
I just got my own USB rocket launcher :-) Awsome thing.
Plug into your computer and you got a remote controlled office missile launcher with 360 degrees horizontal and 45 degree vertival rotation with a range of more than 6 meters – which gives you a coverage of 113 square meters round your workplace.
You can get the gadget here: http://tinyurl.com/2qul3c
Check out the video they have on the page.
Cheers
Jacob Roder
Karl Who?
@56…PTBAA…
Perhaps Marx…
The Piper
@55…Darryl…
A constant theme that weaves itself through many of the postings by HA True Believers (read Eric Hoffer’s classic volume, The True Believer, that explains the mentality of mass movement – doesn’t have to be very large in numbers to qualify as “mass” – adherents) is the perfidy of Karl Rove.
All things evil are explained as the devious manipulation of Great Satan Rove. If he were accused of being the one who really handed Eve the piece of forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden, his guilt thereof would be uncritically accepted among a great many of the posters.
Witness @52…S-Choir…
What’s fascinating to me is that Goldy bemoans how Democrats are “pussies” (meow, meow) by comparison to Republicans, yet so many of the postings at HA continue to bitch and complain about Republicans are too hard or too mean, which collectively prove his point.
And even more fascinating…Karl Rove, GWB, Dick Cheney, et al? None will be on any ballot in 2008, and, in KR’s case, he has never been on a ballot anywhere ever. Yet so many of the HA posters continue to essentially be in perpetual campaign mode against them.
I suppose you could say that the ultimate Rovian deception is to continue to distract gullible lefties with his two horns and a tail leaving today’s candidates free to campaign at will. Clever that, eh what?
@58:
This sort of comment just cracks me up. You don’t think it’s relevant that for the last 7 years these assholes have been in control of the Republican party? You don’t think their influence and style will continue after they’ve left office? You don’t think that this history is important to understanding where the Republicans will go next? You’re fucking high.
Oh, and does this mean your party will stop running against Bill Clinton?
Yeah, didn’t think so.
-OM
@60…OM…
Stop running against Bill Clinton? Did that a long time ago, but he refuses to stop running himself.
Bill Clinton is currently running for…Bill Clinton. Fun loving frat boy that he is, he can’t stand being out of the limelight or off the stage. He can be useful to Hillary, but if it gets to where voters start thinking that a vote for her is a vote for him having a third term? Then there will be a run on air sickness bags.
If she gets the nomination (you can probably bet the farm and the kids’ college money on it), I’ll bet a lot of voters will think twice before handing her four or possibly eight years thus making Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton stretch a total of 24-years. Who’ll then come after her? Jeb’s son, Prescott?
By then, Karl Rove’s many, many, many, many Republican campaign consultant grandchildren will be on the political landscape all looking to top Grandpa’s tactics.
The Piper
“I’ll bet a lot of voters will think twice before handing her four or possibly eight years”
…and maybe more will think it’s a good idea. Ah, competence; what a breath of fresh air that would be.
You people have your set of talking points and presuppositions about Hill and Bill and no amount of evidence will knock you away from them. What’s really funny is that they’re self-contradictory: Hillary is a calculating triangulator who doesn’t stand for anything except that she’s a wild-eyed liberal who would nationalize everything and turn America into the new Soviet.
The funniest part: Hillary is probably the most conservative Democrat running but you guys get so vein-throbbingly upset at the thought of her that you can’t even see that.
It’s no wonder that it’s so hard to take you seriously.
Piper Scott @ 58
“A constant theme that weaves itself through many of the postings by HA True Believers (read Eric Hoffer’s classic volume, The True Believer, that explains the mentality of mass movement – doesn’t have to be very large in numbers to qualify as “mass” – adherents) is the perfidy of Karl Rove.”
Ummm…why would that be surprising? I mean as the president’s (former) chief political adviser, a lot of what people don’t like about the Bush administration (and there is a lot to dislike) would naturally be blamed on Rove and Cheney and, to a lesser extent, Bush. Bush, himself, is largely considered too stupid to actually develop effective ideas on his own, so that sort of concentrates things on Rove and Cheney.
“All things evil are explained as the devious manipulation of Great Satan Rove. If he were accused of being the one who really handed Eve the piece of forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden, his guilt thereof would be uncritically accepted among a great many of the posters.”
Oops…and suddenly the nonsense kicks-om again. Nobody has offered any supernatural explanation for Rove’s skill as a political operative (‘cept you).
“Witness @52…S-Choir…”
Perhaps you are confusing the use of the word “evil” with some claim of supernatural power? That’s cartoon shit, not reality. That people find Rove’s tactics to be evil is (1) an inherent admission that he has been highly effective, (2) a claim that he has used his effectiveness to damage our country.
“What’s fascinating to me is that Goldy bemoans how Democrats are “pussies” (meow, meow) by comparison to Republicans, yet so many of the postings at HA continue to bitch and complain about Republicans are too hard or too mean, which collectively prove his point.”
Goldy has bemoaned how Dems are pussies in a specific context (failure to take winning seriously), not in general. (Yeah…he did so sarcastically here and here.) But, the fact is, many of us liberals actually view the terrorist-obsessed wingnuts as a bunch of bed-wetting pussies.
But, I’m not sure you are reading the comments correctly if you think that people are complaining that Republicans are too “hard or too mean.” It isn’t about hard or mean, for most of us it is about a tangible destruction of America in the hands of the current Administration: lying us into an expensive, pointless war, the death and maiming of U.S. soldiers, the massive budget deficits, hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis, the tarnishing of our reputation in the world, use of torture, domestic spying, suspension of habeas corpus (real and potential), policies that relax environmental protections, the figurative firebombing of the justice department, and on and on and on.
“And even more fascinating…Karl Rove, GWB, Dick Cheney, et al? None will be on any ballot in 2008, and, in KR’s case, he has never been on a ballot anywhere ever. Yet so many of the HA posters continue to essentially be in perpetual campaign mode against them.”
What kind of bullshit statement is that? Since when are we restricted to people who will be on the ballot in another year and a quarter? (And ummm…did you notice that Bush and Cheney are in power now?) And why the fuck would we restrict our discussion to people who have been or will be on a ballot? What kind of bizarre world are you living in?
“I suppose you could say that the ultimate Rovian deception is to continue to distract gullible lefties with his two horns and a tail leaving today’s candidates free to campaign at will. Clever that, eh what?”
Clever? No…the supernatural nonsense looks Puddyesque to me. In reality, Rove has left an important fingerprint on American politics (as has other Bushies). I presume you wouldn’t deny that (or…who knows, maybe you would). Therefore, on this blog there will be commentary on his contribution to the sorry state our country is in now. In the same vein, there will be commentary on Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Gonzo, etc. Your belief that there is an unnatural obsession with Rove is largely a figment of your imagination (perhaps some stereotype fueled by wingnut talk radio).
@64…
Wow! Finally, a coherent HA poster aside from yours truly!
The Piper
#59 — Piper: Hoffer was a nice, little, old blue collar philosopher and I read him (along with many other philosophers) when I was a teenager. I am not saying that you are overestimating your intellectual prowess, because I really don’t know you: But I am saying that you are underestimating mine.
The neo-cons, as I am sure you are aware, are serious students of Leo Strauss.Here is an article discussing Strauss and how he affects our political situation today. ‘Noble lies and perpetual war: Leo Strauss, the neo-cons, and Iraq’.
http://www.informationclearing.....le5010.htm
You say you want serious discussion. It’s time for ‘Coffee Tawk’ !
Discuss. I’m verklempmt for the moment.
I’m betting, Piper, that you’ll impeach the source and refuse to discuss the article. If you do, it’s the beginning of the end for you on HA. You’ll be blithering like PudWax in no time flat.
@62…OM…
“Do I contradict myself? Well, then I contradict myself. I am large, I contain multitudes.” Walt Whitman, Leaves of Grass (remember…that was the volume given by Monica Lewinsky as a gift to Bill).
Hillary can be both a doctrinaire leftist and cynical triangulator all at the same time. Remember, she’s a lawyer, and lawyers are comfortable in what’s called arguing the alternative, a perfectly acceptable legal strategy of promoting absolutely inconsistent and diametrically opposed theories of a case at the same time.
It’s like throwing everything possible at the wall to see what might stick.
As Bill is all about Bill, so Hillary is all about Hillary. But she’s nowhere near as good at it as Bill, who can charm the pants off just about anyone. She’s pulled some doofus stunts trying to appear folksy and just plain people. Her attempts at faux (as opposed to Fox) southern accents are a prime example.
Have you noticed? She’s not trying that stuff as much.
I ask myself: what are the hills upon which she, or any politico, for that matter, will die? From where I sit, in her case it’s the hill of power. And the hill of outdoing Bill.
Now in that effort she just might do some wonderful things…things that might drive doctrinaire lefties crazy in a Nixon-to-China sense. Bill did them; remember Welfare Reform?
Wouldn’t surprise me at all to see a President Hillary Clinton order the invasion of Iran.
Hillary isn’t conservative as much as she is focused on personal success. If that means she eats her ideology for the sake of power…well, given her track record it’s pretty clear she’s willing to eat a lot in order to advance her personal goals.
There are times we need to take off the glasses with their lenses of ideology, and replace them with something more neutral and painfully objective.
The Piper
#68 — Ah, yes! The other possibility is that you will ignore my challenge — which you have chosen to do — for the time being.
So, I’ll post another image of you:
http://www.duffgardens.net/med.....obwall.gif
@65
He’s far more lucid, wonderfully concise, and a whole lot less obnoxiously pompous than you could ever be, blimp brain.
@66 & 67…SC…
I’ve printed and will read the article this evening…And I will think on a suggested reading list for you.
Eric Hoffer little? Ever seen a pic of him? He was a longshoreman on the San Francisco docks for several decades, no “little” guy ever lasted long there.
Not sure whether to be glad or sad are how choked you are with emotion…
The Piper
@69…SC…
Sorry…my hair is much longer than that…and I always have a smile on my face.
The Piper
#71 — Yes, I’ve seen him — in photographs and on the Dick Cavett Show. He wasn’t so big.
He drove a forklift. It was a union job. I’ve done the same sort of work.
@73 Piper doesn’t work – aristocrat, you know. His job is to be a refined Republican and live off the sweat of the lesser classes….like us…and he also expects our reverence.
@73…SC…
I’ve driven a fork truck, too…so?
Hoffer worked as a migrant farm worker, in shipyards, and on the San Francisco docks for decades in the days when stevedoring was hard and dangerous work. He was no, in Goldy’s words, “pussy.”
BTW…He was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by Ronaldus Magnus Reaganus just before his 1983 death.
Too bad his books are largely out of print these days. His is a POV from which we could all learn something.
The Piper
“There are times we need to take off the glasses with their lenses of ideology, and replace them with something more neutral and painfully objective.”
Now we’re getting somewhere! Let me know when you’re ready to do that instead of repeating what you’ve heard in the echo chamber.
Is Hillary without flaws? Nope, never said she was. She’s just far better, and much more of a realist, than you will ever give her credit for, because “HILLARY!!!111one1eleven”
Here’s one for ya: I was embarrassed at her faux accent because it came off as completely phony. That said, the larger context of what she was trying to say was something I could buy into.
I wish she’d come out and admit that authorizing the Iraq invasion was a mistake.
Why do you suppose Hillary is popular in New York? Not just the city but all over the state? It ain’t because she’s some kind of crazy liberal. It’s because she has actually done a good job as a Senator and they appreciate her intelligence and willingness to hear more than one opinion. Are all those upstate New Yorkers just dupes? Really?
If you really want to be “clear-eyed” about Hillary, maybe you should do some objective research of your own.
-OM
#75 — Yes, Hoffer did all those things, but the truly physical work that he did was in his younger years. Hoffer was always on TV self-promoting himself as the blue-collar, brawny, philosopher of the common man. Truman Capote (no pussy, himself) confronted Hoffer (to his face) on this deception by pointing out that Hoffer had spent the last 25 years in the cushy chair of an oversized dock fork-lift working a highly paid union job.
Hoffer admitted that this was true, but explained to Capote that it was not easy to sit for eight hours, and that not everyone possessed the hand-eye coordination or personal union connections to have such a position.
The reality of Hoffer’s life makes his “philosophical” works more works of fiction than of philosophy. Hoffer’s method was to put himself as an ‘Ayn Randian’ hero in a short novella. His philosophy doesn’t stand up to critical scrutiny.
#75 — Boo Ya!!!
@77…SC…
Hoffer was a blue-collar worker and thinker much in the same way Harry Truman was a middle-class midwestern president.
In Cold Blood aside, Truman Capote cultivated a “pussy-esque” personna. He would have been at home as a regular on Sex in the City walking arm in arm down 5th Avenue with Carrie Bradshaw or Charlotte York.
Short novella’s in an Ayn Rand-style??? Huh? First, Hoffer’s work wasn’t in that form, and second, he wasn’t an objectivist.
Just to double check, I leafed through my five Hoffer volumes, and they certainly don’t resemble your description of them.
BTW…His Working and Thinking on the Waterfront, a journal of the year June, 1958 – May, 1959 recounts some damb hard physical labor…and some pleasent days, too.
Hoffer observed life, and wrote down his observations. A simple man, self-taught in the school of hard knocks, and unusually adept at insight and common sense.
As a lefty, SC, I’m surprised at your condescending mention of his UNION job.
The Piper
#78 — You are too literal. The sense of what Hoffer did was to portray himself as a lone individualist-hero against the modern societal machine. In that sense, his writings are connected in sensibility to Ayn Rand’s. Hoffer’s public persona was that of a ‘longshoreman philosoper’.
Let me ask you this, Piper: Have you ever worked your ass off for 12 hours a day and then spent your lunchtime writing in your journal or your time after work researching in the public library and writing slim little philosophical tomes?
What’s wrong with this picture?
“As a lefty, SC, I’m surprised at your condescending mention of his UNION job.” Los Peepero (The Piper, for our non-Spanish speaking friends)
His UNION job is great. But sitting on a cushy seat for eight hours and operating a forklift is not the ‘longshoreman philosopher’ that Hoffer presented to the world. If he was such a ‘stand on your own two feet’ longshoreman philosopher, then why did he need union representation and a 40 hour — union negotiated — work week.
How can you be so obtuse, Piper? Is it deliberate, just to buy you some time while you think of a more bulletproof response?
Piper: You have totally missed the point of, ‘The True Believer’. One of the main critcisms of Democrats is that they lake a cohesive and readily understandable philosophy.
Your use of Hoffer to buttress yourself is totally wrongheaded and inappropriate.
Neo-cons, the religeous right, free marketeers,knee-jerl Goopers — These are the ‘true believers’ that Hoffer speaks of.
Piper: YOU are the True Believer. Your task now is to identify your societal niche in the hideous philosopher of the Neo-Con movement: Leo Strauss.
“In Cold Blood aside, Truman Capote cultivated a “pussy-esque” personna.” Los Peepero
It took brass balls for Capote to assert the person he was — especially in the times that he did it. No “Craigesque” denial for the man whose face will surely grace the three dollar bill — should they ever decide to print one.
I would be proud of America once again if they decided to print a three dollar bill with Truman Capote’s smiling visage on it.
Real Conservatives have abandoned the Republican Party. You should, too.
@79, 80, & 81…SC…
Actually, this is an interesting discussion…
Qustion? Which is it? “Worked your ass off for 12 hours a day…” or “40 hour – union negotiated – work week?”
Before the days of TV, computers, and all the other distractions of life we assume have existed since Methusallah was a boy, people read, wrote letters, thought about things, and occassionally wrote books. All this even after spending a hard day in a field, factory, or, in this case, the San Francisco waterfront.
Hoffer didn’t ride a Ford Foundation, Pew Charitable Trust, or similar gravy train. True, late in his life he had an association with Stanford Universtiy, but he still punched a time clock and carried a lunch bucket.
BTW…I have worked long hours in a physically demanding job all the while looking forward to times when I could grab a few moments to read, reflect, and, frankly, rest.
Hoffer wasn’t superman, but he wasn’t an ordinary man. Rather than hang with the glitterati or try to score a seat at the Algonquin Hotel’s round table, he simply observed life and interpreted what he saw.
If operating a fork truck on the San Francisco docks and belonging to the ILWU doesn’t qualify you as a longshoreman, what does? Additionally, he did other things on the waterfront besides drive a fork truck. He worked in gangs loading and unloading, assembling rigging material, and more…
For reasons that are probably self-evident, he wasn’t popular with people like Harry Bridges, a True Believer if there ever was one, which leads me to why Hoffer is relevent here.
Not all Democrats, but one whale of a lot of them, are knee-jerk lefties. The uncritical willingness to follow the MoveOn party line or bow to Jane Hamsher’s screeds about never speaking ill of your own even when they’re wrong or hyper-hatred of all who dare call into question the ethical depravity of abortion, the holy grail of the left, or even some of the flat-earth thinking that’s expressed at HA, would all be understood by Hoffer as reflexive bias devoid of reasoned thinking.
Hoffer didn’t look at True Believers from the perspective of what they believed; his interest was in the intensity of what they believed. To Hoffer, the best communist was an ex-Nazi; the issue was process, not product.
Also, Hoffer didn’t see mass movements as wrong per se. They simply shared common characteristics.
He really is worth a read to the uninitiated.
The Piper
@85…SC…
Real conservatives? Who? And don’t give me the whole “Ron Paul” canard…
The Piper
“Qustion? Which is it? “Worked your ass off for 12 hours a day…” or “40 hour – union negotiated – work week?”
Indeed. Which is it?
Hoffer did not write in the era of James Thurber and Dorothy Parker. I think you have the time frame a little off.
His 1st book was published in 1958.
This is totally false, Piper. I think that you have the log-in-eye syndrome described by Jesus H. Christ over 2000 years ago.
“Not all Democrats, but one whale of a lot of them, are knee-jerk lefties. The uncritical willingness to follow the MoveOn party line or bow to Jane Hamsher’s screeds about never speaking ill of your own even when they’re wrong or hyper-hatred of all who dare call into question the ethical depravity of abortion, the holy grail of the left, or even some of the flat-earth thinking that’s expressed at HA, would all be understood by Hoffer as reflexive bias devoid of reasoned thinking.”
Most Democrats don’t even know what MoveOn.org is, let alone jerk their knees in unison to it.
@89…SC…
The True Believer was published in 1951.
The Passionate State of Mind in 1954.
And I should have said, “…something like the Algonquin Club round table,” which, as you correctly note, had long since expired (1929 or there abouts) by the time Hoffer emerged on the scene.
The Piper
@91…SC…
Are you saying that most Democrats don’t keep informed as to current events?
Sheesh…who’s side are you on?
The Piper
Most people on the right or left vote their prejudices. There’s precious little time for most adults to stay somewhat informed, and the news sources out there have profit or propaganda more in mind than informing people.
Unfortunate, but true.
I do believe, though, that Democrats have more innate intelligence than those on the right.
You can see in the Republican debates that their intended audience borders on retarded. That’s your base. Don’t you feel ashamed of your party when they are so obviously pandering to hate-filled morons?
@94…SC…
“I do believe, though, that Democrats have more innate intelligence than those on the right.”
Please, this is just an example of what I’ve said before: Liberals think conservatives are stupid, while conservatives are more respectful because we simply think liberals are…wrong!
You see, I have hope for you; SC, you, too can come over from the dark said and be set free!
I love the Republican base; good, hard-working men and women with families who love their country and believe in it.
The Piper
#95 — You sound so patronizing of your ‘base’ — as if they were good-hearted and loyal Medeival oafs.
@96…SC…
Not at all…I firmly believe that they are the salt of the earth. They’re my kind of people, and I am proud to both come from them and be one of them.
The Piper
PS: News report from today’s Demo Prexy candidate debate says that Hillary, Barack and Haircut won’t commit to withdraw troops from Iraq by the end of their first term IF elected.
No truth to the rumor that Dennis “The Vegan” Kucinich has invited Iranian Presidentagogue Ahmadneedstogetajob to invade the U.S. while former Alaska Senator Mike Gravel was heard to ask, “What’s the United States?”
#97 — Those things you are saying are the sort of mindless crap that Republicans feed to their base. Can you count: a) how many prejudices and deliberate misstatements you appealed to? Can you count b) how many factual things you said or even alluded to?
I can. prejudices and deliberate misstatements — “the salt of the earth”; “Haircut”; “The Vegan”; “What’s the United States?”
“won’t commit to withdraw troops from Iraq”
Facts: ZERO
What happened to that article on Leo Strauss you were going to read? Got dyslexia?
#97 — I forgot this little xenophobic gem. You epitomize the wingnut practice of refusing to listen to people who don’t say what you want to hear. You even intimate that it is unpatriotic to listen to people you don’t like.
What else can a reasonable man do except to tell you to go fuck yourself.
“…Iranian Presidentagogue Ahmadneedstogetajob….”
@100…SC…
Let’s start with 100…
I consider the Iranian president to be on par with any number of genocidal and thuggish dictators who’ve paraded their hatred and power-mad rhetoric across the world stage for many years. Big or small, Hitler or Papa Doc Duvalier, they’re pretty much all the same at their core and distinguished only by the level of their brutality and impact.
Ahmadinejad scored a pretty big PR coup in the Muslim world by snookering Columbia U. President Lee Bollinger into giving him a platform to spout his racist and dangerous spew all for the benefit of the folks back home and others in the Muslim world.
So I tweak his name? What does that make me? Jay Leno? Bollinger thought he was being a tough guy by ripping into what’s his face for domestic consumption, but he was finessed by the Iranian’s dismissal of all his bombast.
There are no homosexuals in Iran…Iran has no interest in nuclear weapons…There is a Santa Claus.
Which statement has a greater ring of truth to it?
Today, he’s playing kissy-face with Venezuala’s anti-American strong-man, Hugo Chavez, known far and wide as a stalwart defender of freedom. Give me a break!
I have a friend who lives much of the year in S. American and who’s an adherent of the B’hai faith. She’s one liberal Democrat, but she loathes both Chavez and Ahmadinejad for what they’re doing to both people in their respective countries and, in Ahmaninejad’s case, to her fellow B’hai’s, who seem to disappear never to be seen again with scary regularity.
Now, for you to assert that that I have an unwillingness to listen to anyone who doesn’t say what I want to hear, is laughable. I’ve engaged you and several other HA regulars in discussion; I’ve put it out there and been willing to take it.
You seem to want to dismiss me with a vulgarity all too common to your discourse.
Xenophobic??? How about treating him like the clown he is?
And how about all those Democrats in New York who were furious that he was given a platform to spew his anti-semitic, anti-Israel, holocaust-denying lies.
And don’t try to defend him by parsing his words; had they been uttered by a German in Germany, they would have resulted in an arrest since denying the Holocaust is a criminal act in that country.
Ahmadinejad is a tyrant, a threat to the region (making him a threat to the U.S.), a murderer waiting for a weapon big enough to assure him his place in history alongside Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, and others.
Ridiculing and mocking such a man isn’t xenophobic, it’s giving him the respect he’s due…
The Piper
@99…SC…
From the AP report of last night’s Demo debate:
“The leading Democratic White House hopefuls conceded Wednesday night they cannot guarantee to pull all U.S. combat troops from Iraq by the end of the next presidential term in 2013.
‘I think it’s hard to project four years from now,’ said Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois in the opening moments of a campaign debate in the nation’s first primary state.
‘It is very difficult to know what we’re going to be inheriting,’ added Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.
‘I cannot make that commitment,’ said former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina.”
The Big Three, Barack, Hillary, and Haircut (legitimate satirical commentary brought about by John Edwards own behavior), could not and would not commit to having troops out of Iraq by the end of their first term, let alone the first year of the term.
Now…as to your cited article. I’ll start by asking what point you were trying to make by asking that I read it? Did you expect me to be persuaded by the arguments of a couple hard-left types, including a Canadian academic?
The thing starts out with a wild and bald-faced assertion about how “…it is widely recognised that the Bush administration was not honest about the reasons it gave for invading Iraq.”
Oh? Widely recognised by whom? Hard-left devotees?
The entire articl/interview struck me as a de-construction of Leo Strauss in order to prove that whatever he said or thought must be grounded in a lie, all who either studied under him or are modern-day disciples must be liars because he was one, since they’re liars at their core the truth is ipso facto automatically contrary to their assertions, etc.
I’m no scholar of political or ethical philosophers, but from what I can tell, all Strauss does is remind us that there’s nothing new under the sun in terms of political philosophy. Plato, Aristotle, Machiavelli? Been there, done that. The truth of what the ancients said then applies equally well to today.
As an academic and a German Jew who escaped Hitler’s Germany, his alleged penchant for secrecy is perhaps better understood as a need for discretion in the face of persecution. Sadly, much of what passes for critcism of neocon thinkers these days smacks of the anti-semitism Strauss was all to familiar with in his day.
Strauss was a classicist, not a modernist. Big deal.
BTW…I’m thinking of subscribing to The Weekly Standard…Haven’t had a subscription in several years, and there’s nothing like repeated doses of Bill Kristol…
The Piper
Why don’t you try repeated doses of arsenic? The net result will be the same eventually.
@103…Chadt…
You first…
The Piper
#101 — The point isn’t that Ahmadinejad is a bad guy. We all know that. The whole point of your tirade — that Ahmadinejad is a tyrant and a dictator — is known by all.
However, I have some problems with what you said and how you said it:
1) People are known by the company they keep, and you include several decent and moral Democratic Presidential hopefuls, with a swipe at an Iranian dictator. That’s at best a rhetorical trick, at worst, deliberate propagandizing of the sort that you Republicans are famous for.
2) The whole point of free speech is that you protect the right of unpopular- even odious – speech. The president of Columbia U. introduced Ahmadinejad as an evil dictator. “Keep your friends close and your enemies even closer.” Merv Griffin
3) Your juvenile mocking of Ahmadinejad’s name has nothing to do with your detestation of him and his politics. It’s just a cheap shot at his culture of origen. It may work well in getting a ‘HEE-HAW” out of your moronic ‘base’, but it has no place on this blog — as you have yourself complained that you wish you could raise the level of discourse. This kind of stupid stunt does not do this.
4) In comment #97, you refer to your hate-filled and ignorant ‘base’ as the “the salt of the earth”. Fine. Whatever. That’s your opinion, not mine. You then refer to Democratic Presidential candidates variously as, “Haircut” and, “Dennis ‘The Vegan’ Kucinich”. These are cheap shots that appeal not to peopls’ reason, but to their prejudices. ‘HEE-HAW’— not.
You note that: ‘…Hillary, Barack and Haircut won’t commit to withdraw troops from Iraq by the end of their first term IF elected.” All have promised to bring the troops home — in a reasonable and prudent time frame. Yet, you ‘spin’ that to mean that being in Iraq must be the correct thing because they won’t leave Helter-Skelter — “if elected.”
So, your much vaunted and — by me — awaited ‘raising’ of the level of discourse has not occurred. It’s the same old wine in a brand new bottle.
#101 My respose to your weak drivel:
1- “Now…as to your cited article. I’ll start by asking what point you were trying to make by asking that I read it? Did you expect me to be persuaded by the arguments of a couple hard-left types, including a Canadian academic?
You start out, as I predicted, by impeaching the source, which happens to be a well-respected and legitimate scholar. So, your first thing is to note that what you read cannot be logical because you do not like the source of the information. That is childish.
2- “The thing starts out with a wild and bald-faced assertion about how ‘…it is widely recognised that the Bush administration was not honest about the reasons it gave for invading Iraq.’”
Bush, himself, has said this. As has Colin Powell and William F. Buckley, Jr. It’s not “…a wild and bald-faced assertion.” It’s the simple truth, and you know it.
“The entire articl/interview struck me as a de-construction of Leo Strauss in order to prove that whatever he said or thought must be grounded in a lie, all who either studied under him or are modern-day disciples must be liars because he was one, since they’re liars at their core the truth is ipso facto automatically contrary to their assertions, etc.”
I believe you have got it right. Except for one thing. If a group of people are all students of a philosopher, and that philosopher advocates lying to the electorate, and they later are shown to have lied us into a war, then belief in the precepts of the philosopher is a good predictor of actions they will try to take. You don’t even present any examples to support your conclusions. You just present your conclusion, and since you like the conclusion, then whatever route you arrived at it, must be correct – in your limited view.
Hi nice site i licke him ty.
Stasrag
http://midsn.com